Joining NTEU worth it?

[Anonymous]

I'm new to the SEC and wondering if it's worth joining the union. In the federal pay raise thread, someone mentioned that there's no compensation agreement and seems like pay raises are pretty arbitrary. I've never been part of a union and not sure what the benefits would be. To join or not to join? I'm not on probation if makes that a difference.

[Anonymous]

So here is the secret your union will not tell you......you are in the bargaining unit and covered by the negotiated agreement regardless of whether you pay dues. This means that you can rely on the contract for compensation issues, due process issues, rules on promotion, etc.

Paying dues gets you two things: 1) the ability to vote on the collective bargaining agreement, major issues, and unit leadership; and 2) the ability to use the negotiated grievance procedure represented by someone from he union.

So, to answer your question, no it is not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So here is the secret your union will not tell you......you are in the bargaining unit and covered by the negotiated agreement regardless of whether you pay dues. This means that you can rely on the contract for compensation issues, due process issues, rules on promotion, etc.

Paying dues gets you two things: 1) the ability to vote on the collective bargaining agreement, major issues, and unit leadership; and 2) the ability to use the negotiated grievance procedure represented by someone from he union.

So, to answer your question, no it is not worth it.

If nobody pays then there is nobody to negotiate on your behalf. OP: dues aren’t that much. Don’t be a freeloader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So here is the secret your union will not tell you......you are in the bargaining unit and covered by the negotiated agreement regardless of whether you pay dues. This means that you can rely on the contract for compensation issues, due process issues, rules on promotion, etc.

Paying dues gets you two things: 1) the ability to vote on the collective bargaining agreement, major issues, and unit leadership; and 2) the ability to use the negotiated grievance procedure represented by someone from he union.

So, to answer your question, no it is not worth it.

If nobody pays then there is nobody to negotiate on your behalf. OP: dues aren’t that much. Don’t be a freeloader.

NP and this part isn't transparent to me. The agreement is negotiated by an SEC team that uses official time...no dues required there. Agree if there's representation in a grievance they may hire outside counsel for you but you're not getting that as a non-paying member so no free riding there either. I think some of the money is used for lobbying so there is a tenuous free rider issue there to the extent the lobbying accomplishes anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So here is the secret your union will not tell you......you are in the bargaining unit and covered by the negotiated agreement regardless of whether you pay dues. This means that you can rely on the contract for compensation issues, due process issues, rules on promotion, etc.

Paying dues gets you two things: 1) the ability to vote on the collective bargaining agreement, major issues, and unit leadership; and 2) the ability to use the negotiated grievance procedure represented by someone from he union.

So, to answer your question, no it is not worth it.

If nobody pays then there is nobody to negotiate on your behalf. OP: dues aren’t that much. Don’t be a freeloader.

NP and this part isn't transparent to me. The agreement is negotiated by an SEC team that uses official time...no dues required there. Agree if there's representation in a grievance they may hire outside counsel for you but you're not getting that as a non-paying member so no free riding there either. I think some of the money is used for lobbying so there is a tenuous free rider issue there to the extent the lobbying accomplishes anything.

When the union negotiating team meets with management, it helps if the union can say that that most union eligible employees are union members. If only a tiny percent of union eligible employees are union members, management will think that the union doesn’t represent the views of most employees. Additionally, more union members means that the union can hire outside attorneys to represent members. If management knows that the union will aggressively represent members, management may be more cautious with messing with rank and file.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So here is the secret your union will not tell you......you are in the bargaining unit and covered by the negotiated agreement regardless of whether you pay dues. This means that you can rely on the contract for compensation issues, due process issues, rules on promotion, etc.

Paying dues gets you two things: 1) the ability to vote on the collective bargaining agreement, major issues, and unit leadership; and 2) the ability to use the negotiated grievance procedure represented by someone from he union.

So, to answer your question, no it is not worth it.

If nobody pays then there is nobody to negotiate on your behalf. OP: dues aren’t that much. Don’t be a freeloader.

NP and this part isn't transparent to me. The agreement is negotiated by an SEC team that uses official time...no dues required there. Agree if there's representation in a grievance they may hire outside counsel for you but you're not getting that as a non-paying member so no free riding there either. I think some of the money is used for lobbying so there is a tenuous free rider issue there to the extent the lobbying accomplishes anything.

PP who suggested not paying dues here. To be fair, individual chapters of NTEU are supported by national NTEU. It is a large organization with salaried staff, all funded by dues.

[Anonymous]

No it is not worth it. Many of the NTEU people are assholes and do nothing when you need them. Waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So here is the secret your union will not tell you......you are in the bargaining unit and covered by the negotiated agreement regardless of whether you pay dues. This means that you can rely on the contract for compensation issues, due process issues, rules on promotion, etc.

Paying dues gets you two things: 1) the ability to vote on the collective bargaining agreement, major issues, and unit leadership; and 2) the ability to use the negotiated grievance procedure represented by someone from he union.

So, to answer your question, no it is not worth it.

If nobody pays then there is nobody to negotiate on your behalf. OP: dues aren’t that much. Don’t be a freeloader.

NP and this part isn't transparent to me. The agreement is negotiated by an SEC team that uses official time...no dues required there. Agree if there's representation in a grievance they may hire outside counsel for you but you're not getting that as a non-paying member so no free riding there either. I think some of the money is used for lobbying so there is a tenuous free rider issue there to the extent the lobbying accomplishes anything.

When the union negotiating team meets with management, it helps if the union can say that that most union eligible employees are union members. If only a tiny percent of union eligible employees are union members, management will think that the union doesn’t represent the views of most employees. Additionally, more union members means that the union can hire outside attorneys to represent members. If management knows that the union will aggressively represent members, management may be more cautious with messing with rank and file.

This. 100%.

[Anonymous]

I've always thought unions in the federal government were a bit odd. Federal employment already comes with entire volumes of regulations that protect employment, govern hiring and benefits, provide due process and avenues of appeal for nearly everything. It is a fundamentally different environment than the private sector.

And in my experience, union negotiations provide at best minimal added benefits to employees. And they create an "us v. them" mindset. In order for the union to show value, it has to paint management and not caring at all about the employees. Why would management not care? It isn't a profit-driven environment where worker exploitation can lead to better profits, etc. Unions also can create a perverse incentive for management to give less than they may even want to for fear of a "slippery slope" and creating permanent entitlement that they can't alter if conditions change. Look at those agencies that are not unionized. Are staff there really any worse off than unionized environments? I don't think so.

Unions are here to stay and I'm not arguing that they are bad. I'm just saying that I'm not sure the added value is worth the money, division they create, and often LONG delay in making beneficial changes.

One thing that is good is the "free" representation they can provide in disciplinary proceedings, and appeals of various things. That can be nice for some, certainly.

[Anonymous]

I'm a member at my organization. The union has stopped some pretty rough changes to our performance plan so they've made a pretty big difference since I have been here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a member at my organization. The union has stopped some pretty rough changes to our performance plan so they've made a pretty big difference since I have been here.

This. They can have a tremendous impact in negotiation of how performance based metrics are used.

During the former administration, unions did not have much power. Yes they could file a grievance against the agency for firing someone, but the Agency would just appeal it if they lost the grievance and win. The expectation is that things will change in the Appellate body under this administration and the union will have more power.

Also, don't forget that helping to fund the national union is a good thing. A well funded national union will be able to advocate for big picture issues (pay raises from Congress or the administration, and making sure that benefits like EPL leave are included when congress is handing out money).

Although I've never filed a grievance, and hope to never do so, I support the union in my workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a member at my organization. The union has stopped some pretty rough changes to our performance plan so they've made a pretty big difference since I have been here.

This. They can have a tremendous impact in negotiation of how performance based metrics are used.

During the former administration, unions did not have much power. Yes they could file a grievance against the agency for firing someone, but the Agency would just appeal it if they lost the grievance and win. The expectation is that things will change in the Appellate body under this administration and the union will have more power.

Also, don't forget that helping to fund the national union is a good thing. A well funded national union will be able to advocate for big picture issues (pay raises from Congress or the administration, and making sure that benefits like EPL leave are included when congress is handing out money).

Although I've never filed a grievance, and hope to never do so, I support the union in my workplace.

This. Plus NTEU National has a fabulous legal department that helps keep the federal government honest by filing unfair labor practice charges or litigation when the administration tries to get away with shady stuff w/r/t employees. Don’t be a free loader. Pay your union dues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a member at my organization. The union has stopped some pretty rough changes to our performance plan so they've made a pretty big difference since I have been here.

This. They can have a tremendous impact in negotiation of how performance based metrics are used.

During the former administration, unions did not have much power. Yes they could file a grievance against the agency for firing someone, but the Agency would just appeal it if they lost the grievance and win. The expectation is that things will change in the Appellate body under this administration and the union will have more power.

Also, don't forget that helping to fund the national union is a good thing. A well funded national union will be able to advocate for big picture issues (pay raises from Congress or the administration, and making sure that benefits like EPL leave are included when congress is handing out money).

Although I've never filed a grievance, and hope to never do so, I support the union in my workplace.

This. Plus NTEU National has a fabulous legal department that helps keep the federal government honest by filing unfair labor practice charges or litigation when the administration tries to get away with shady stuff w/r/t employees. Don’t be a free loader. Pay your union dues.

I'm good with NTEU as a lobbying organization for sure. But the rest of it I don't really see the value. Keep in mind that management is prohibited from communicating with employees about the subject of negotiations. So anything employees are hearing about "Shady stuff" management is trying to do is heavily influenced by the union trying to play the hero...When there is conflict it is b/c management wants to increase accountability and recognize differences and the union's interest is in eliminating any distinctions among employees. Their stated mission is to advocate for every employee being treated the exact same regardless of differences. (An example is the constant fight over pay-for-performance compensation systems) Their interest is not in enhancing the mission. I get that they can be a "balancing" force to make sure that employees are taken into account in decision-making. I just rarely see that benefit as outweighing the strife and delay that comes with it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought unions in the federal government were a bit odd. Federal employment already comes with entire volumes of regulations that protect employment, govern hiring and benefits, provide due process and avenues of appeal for nearly everything. It is a fundamentally different environment than the private sector.

And in my experience, union negotiations provide at best minimal added benefits to employees. And they create an "us v. them" mindset. In order for the union to show value, it has to paint management and not caring at all about the employees. Why would management not care? It isn't a profit-driven environment where worker exploitation can lead to better profits, etc. Unions also can create a perverse incentive for management to give less than they may even want to for fear of a "slippery slope" and creating permanent entitlement that they can't alter if conditions change. Look at those agencies that are not unionized. Are staff there really any worse off than unionized environments? I don't think so.

Unions are here to stay and I'm not arguing that they are bad. I'm just saying that I'm not sure the added value is worth the money, division they create, and often LONG delay in making beneficial changes.

One thing that is good is the "free" representation they can provide in disciplinary proceedings, and appeals of various things. That can be nice for some, certainly.

Unions don’t cause the “us” versus “them” culture. That culture is a byproduct of toxic workplaces and it exits even in workplaces where there are no unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought unions in the federal government were a bit odd. Federal employment already comes with entire volumes of regulations that protect employment, govern hiring and benefits, provide due process and avenues of appeal for nearly everything. It is a fundamentally different environment than the private sector.

And in my experience, union negotiations provide at best minimal added benefits to employees. And they create an "us v. them" mindset. In order for the union to show value, it has to paint management and not caring at all about the employees. Why would management not care? It isn't a profit-driven environment where worker exploitation can lead to better profits, etc. Unions also can create a perverse incentive for management to give less than they may even want to for fear of a "slippery slope" and creating permanent entitlement that they can't alter if conditions change. Look at those agencies that are not unionized. Are staff there really any worse off than unionized environments? I don't think so.

Unions are here to stay and I'm not arguing that they are bad. I'm just saying that I'm not sure the added value is worth the money, division they create, and often LONG delay in making beneficial changes.

One thing that is good is the "free" representation they can provide in disciplinary proceedings, and appeals of various things. That can be nice for some, certainly.

Unions don’t cause the “us” versus “them” culture. That culture is a byproduct of toxic workplaces and it exits even in workplaces where there are no unions.

PP you are responding to. You are correct. It does not "create" that environment. I'll revise my statement to say "reinforces" or "entrenches."

Thoughts on anything else I wrote?